Invisibility and Glitterdust: What happens?

[Ninja-to]

The spell Glitterdust says it 'outlines' invisible things. Does that render invisibile things completely visible and subject to attacks normally? I thought it might mean that there is no longer a need for a spot check, but a 50% concealement miss chance still applies. Anyone agree/disagree? My players argued there is no miss chance and invisible creatures can be attacked normally, but I met them halfway and suggested a 20% miss chance instead, as the creature isn't completely visible (it says there is only an outline). The spell description is rather short. :\

 

[Thanee]

No miss chance.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The spell Glitterdust says it 'outlines' invisible things. Does that render invisibile things completely visible and subject to attacks normally?

Yes - the same way that coating something invisibile in flour causes them to become visible.

 

[Diirk]

Yes - the same way that coating something invisibile in flour causes them to become visible.

Well not quite the same way; coating something invisible in flour would eliminate its +20 hide bonus, whereas glitterdust gives them a -40 hide penalty, so someone with glitterdust is even more visible

 

[BSF]

The spell Glitterdust says it 'outlines' invisible things. Does that render invisibile things completely visible and subject to attacks normally?

Absolutely! The target might also be blinded. Glitterdust is a nice little spell, but you do have to be careful since it could blind your allies if they are in the spell area as well.

 

[Whimsical]

I would rule that there is no miss chance. Check out the effects that grant partial concealment: darkness, fog, blur, a bush. These effects disrupt your outline and make it unclear where you are. Something that defines your outline would negate the concealment that invisibility grants.

 

[Ninja-to]

I would rule that there is no miss chance. Check out the effects that grant partial concealment: darkness, fog, blur, a bush. These effects disrupt your outline and make it unclear where you are. Something that defines your outline would negate the concealment that invisibility grants.

I guess I have a hard time understanding how having 'an outline' is exactly the same as being plainly visible in full 3d. In fact doesn't having an outline mean you see the creature in 2d? How would you know that your swing wasn't short?

And does this mean that Sneak attacks are still viable too? How do you know where *all* those weak spots are if you can only see an outline? Ok you can see the head, but what about the vein that runs under the left thigh bone just under the knee (I'm making this up).

 

[Thanee]

It's a three-dimensional outline.

Bye
Thanee

 

[BSF]

Oh! I see, you are thinking it just kind of outlines your form. No, it is just like covering somebody with bottles and bottles of glitter. If you covered somebody enough, you might not tell what color clothes they were wearing, or even what color skin they had. Still, you would know where their anatomy was and could see where you need to hit.

That does bring up an interesting point though. Just because you glitterdusted somebody doesn't mean you can positively identify them. This is another case where Invisibility Purge or True Seeing would be more useful.

 

[Caeleddin]

I might give them concealment bonus vs precision based attacks (if they would "miss" because of the concealment, they do normal damage), but otherwise, it would be like they are standing there, fully visible, in bright sunlight.